I have spoken to David Howman at WADA about this issue, and he is examining if it is a code violation or not. But you're right to think that it isn't quite as obvious and important to WADA as the BOA case.

I was in support of the no points for returning riders rule at the CCP. And still do think it has merit, as it allows a contrite, admitted doper time to earn his teammates respect as a worker, before he goes trying to win races. Our approach with Dekker could not be more different than the approach with Valverde. I was not aware of the WADA rule at the time, which is my oversight.

I also think that the "no additional punishment" rule would apply to removing the license from a whole team, due to the anti-doping violation of one rider. But it's a bit nuanced. We shall see.

Henao might be great. It all depends on how he adapts to life in Europe and the European peloton. It's one thing to move to the front of a 100 rider American peloton on huge, wide roads. It's quite another to maneuver in a crazy 190 rider field on goat paths in italy. Only time will tell if he can handle that part or not.

Talent isn't just vo2 max and watts. A bike racer is half F1 driver, half marathon runner. If the F1 driver sucks, the marathon runner only gets to play in small races.

Well, the only way for us to keep consistent uniforms, is to have revenue streams, apart from pure sponsorship, so we can build an identity apart from any sponsor. So, we need the horse before the cart on that...

BUT...Look at our argyle. Argyle isn't specific to any color or company. Its just a pattern we can put on a a uniform, no matter who the sponsor or what the color. And our team is identified by argyle. So, it's a step. Betcha most people didn't realize my evil plan....

Transfers: Transfers, in my opinion, should be instant and during a 1 month window (August)...Thor wants to ride fro BMC, great, not problem, he starts tomorrow. Then you don't have the big hubbaloo over his non-selection to the Vuelta. Too many riders are not "really' with their teams in the last part of the year. So, let's change that.

You would have to limit transfers to 6-8 per team or so, or it could get very complicated. But basically, the calendar transfer system is antiquated. Time to become a grown up pro sport!

The Father of Clean Cycling, Christophe Bassons wrote:When I look at cycling today, I get the impression that history is repeating itself: riders who are supposed to be rouleurs are climbing passes at the front of the race, and those who are supposed to be climbers are riding time trials at more than 50 kilometres per hour.

Both Paris-Roubaix and the Tour TTT were things I won't forget. No one rated us as real winners for either one, so that made it doubly nice. Plus the personality management that went into both of those wins was something Freud would have been proud of.

Sponsors already pay top dollar for pro cycling, in comparison to other advertising avenues and sports. And they get great value from cycling. Cycling gets huge viewership world wide, so that is not our problem. we do quite well on that front.

The biggest threat to sponsors is a very subtle one: Teams like Katusha, Astana, or BMC that are not backed by a sponsor, but by a wealthy individual or governments. These teams tend to have "unlimited" budgets, which hurts other teams that rely on corporate sponsorship for funding. Why? Because they raise the cost of having a #1 type team to the point it becomes uneconomical to sponsor cycling for a publicly owned company that has to answer to shareholders. Then their ad dollars go elsewhere.

This is easy to fix, however! Simply put overall budget/payroll caps in place. I'm a big believer in raising the minimum wage in cycling, but having firm total budget cap for all teams. That way fairness is applied to the business of cycling, not just the anti-doping aspect.